Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MrRoboto75]

That sounds suspiciously like the common "Pro-lifers don't actually think abortion is murder, they just want women punished for daring to have sex!" strawman. A big part of pro-life argument is that anti-abortion laws are not gender discriminatory, because it is already illegal for men to murder their children out of convenience.

Let's make the murdering of children legal then. ez.

[Trekkin]

That sounds suspiciously like the common "Pro-lifers don't actually think abortion is murder, they just want women punished for daring to have sex!" strawman. A big part of pro-life argument is that anti-abortion laws are not gender discriminatory, because it is already illegal for men to murder their children out of convenience.

It's cited by opponents of the ERA as a reason to oppose the ERA. Literally. "The ERA would be used to overturn all restrictions on abortion (including the partial birth abortion ban, 3rd-trimester abortion ban and parental notice of minors seeking an abortion)."

[hector13]

That sounds suspiciously like the common "Pro-lifers don't actually think abortion is murder, they just want women punished for daring to have sex!" strawman. A big part of pro-life argument is that anti-abortion laws are not gender discriminatory, because it is already illegal for men to murder their children out of convenience.

Let's make the murdering of children legal then. ez.

That’s agist, mofo. What’s so important about adults that we get punished for killing ‘em?

[Lord Shonus]

That sounds suspiciously like the common "Pro-lifers don't actually think abortion is murder, they just want women punished for daring to have sex!" strawman. A big part of pro-life argument is that anti-abortion laws are not gender discriminatory, because it is already illegal for men to murder their children out of convenience.

It's cited by opponents of the ERA as a reason to oppose the ERA. Literally. "The ERA would be used to overturn all restrictions on abortion (including the partial birth abortion ban, 3rd-trimester abortion ban and parental notice of minors seeking an abortion)."

Fair point, but that isn't quite the way it was worded. There is a difference between "Pro-lifers admit that banning abortion is discriminatory" and "This proposal is extremely broad, and can be used to treat things that are not really discriminatory like abortion restrictions as if they were discriminatory." One is a nuanced, debatable statment, and the other is "Look what these cartoon villains said!".



Granted, I hadn't heard either variation before you posted, so my previous comments were made in total ignorance of the argument.

[smjjames]

That sounds suspiciously like the common "Pro-lifers don't actually think abortion is murder, they just want women punished for daring to have sex!" strawman. A big part of pro-life argument is that anti-abortion laws are not gender discriminatory, because it is already illegal for men to murder their children out of convenience.

What I said sounds a suspiciously like the strawman you mentioned?

Still pretty BS because it sounds like they’re trying to have their cake and eat it at the same time.

That sounds suspiciously like the common "Pro-lifers don't actually think abortion is murder, they just want women punished for daring to have sex!" strawman. A big part of pro-life argument is that anti-abortion laws are not gender discriminatory, because it is already illegal for men to murder their children out of convenience.

It's cited by opponents of the ERA as a reason to oppose the ERA. Literally. "The ERA would be used to overturn all restrictions on abortion (including the partial birth abortion ban, 3rd-trimester abortion ban and parental notice of minors seeking an abortion)."

Fair point, but that isn't quite the way it was worded. There is a difference between "Pro-lifers admit that banning abortion is discriminatory" and "This proposal is extremely broad, and can be used to treat things that are not really discriminatory like abortion restrictions as if they were discriminatory." One is a nuanced, debatable statment, and the other is "Look what these cartoon villains said!".



Granted, I hadn't heard either variation before you posted, so my previous comments were made in total ignorance of the argument.

Fair point as far as the two different reasons, however, we don’t know the reason why those specific politicians voted no because nobody asked them AFAIK.

[Lord Shonus]

What I said sounds a suspiciously like the strawman you mentioned?

Between Trekkin's original post and your reply, I got a very strong vibe of the argument Trekkin was paraphrasing to be exactly that. This is why I emphasized that I wasn't familiar with the more detailed argument that Trekkin was actually paraphrasing - it was something I'd not encountered and that felt very much like Trekkin was repeating a "Let me ignore their stated motives and tell you what they are really saying" argument. In this case I was incorrect, but that is how I parsed it.


EDIT: To be honest, I am probably way oversensitive to "bad faith" arguments, and tend to see them where I shouldn't.

[Trekkin]

Fair point as far as the two different reasons, however, we don’t know the reason why those specific politicians voted no because nobody asked them AFAIK.

In at least one case, we do: Rep. Peter Breen said, and I quote: "Alice Paul was pro-life, and the sponsor and his allies on this have twisted her language into a mechanism for abortion, something Ms. Paul never would have stood for,"

EDIT:

EDIT: To be honest, I am probably way oversensitive to "bad faith" arguments, and tend to see them where I shouldn't.

To be fair, such arguments are made far too readily, particularly in reference to straw men as ideologically disparate from the rhetor as I am from the pro-life movement.

[Dorsidwarf]

Just be careful to not be so eager to knock over the straw men of the opposition that you stand up more of your own.

[PTTG??]

I really fail to see the point in taking "pro-life" people seriously. They have overwhelmingly supported Trump, which manifestly counters any claim they might make to believing in some kind of moral law. If Trump can be an instrument of God's will, then so can the most gleefully cackling stereotype of an abortion doctor.

[Lord Shonus]

Yes. People voting against the candidate that proudly supports something that they condemn wholeheartedly is reason to dismiss everything they say. That is a sensible attitude to take.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

You're saying it's a lesser-evil scenario? One would think they'd grumble considerably in that case. But I don't know, maybe they have been grumbling.

If PTTG?? is correct, they've made arguments for how Trump could be an instrument of God's will, which IMO does validly lead to the statement "their claimed moral code is in shambles and can support pretty much anything they twist it to." It's just... who is They?

[Lord Shonus]

Most pro-lifers are single-issue voters. The only issue they care about is "does this candidate support murdering the unborn?". Any other issue is essentially irrelevant from their point of view. Since Clinton is a hardcore supporter of abortion, and Trump issued no statements in support of abortion, pro-lifers voted for Trump. That doesn't mean that they support anything else he does, he just sides with them on the only issue they care about.

[nenjin]

Which is why pro-choice people have a hard time squaring our beliefs with single issue voters. Because they don't see it in black and white terms. But that is clearly a topic for the.....do we have an Abortion thread that hasn't yet been locked?

[nenjin]

Oh hell no. There is no way I want to captain that fail ship.

[hector13]

Every thread needs its Francesco Schettino.